[N0help4u]

I agree too
I don't want health care and I certainly don't want to pay for something I don't use more than a ER visit once in a blue moon.

[excon]

Hello righty's:

During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed...

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much exercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff... What's the difference?

excon

[N0help4u]

But I have the right to NOT get insurance the way it is now. The way it will be I won't be able to afford it.

[inthebox]

Prevention is where I think the government has a right to take the lead in healthcare.

It is good to have panels and research and accounting for what treatments, preventative care, is cost effective for the US population as a whole.


Vaccinations, mamograms, nutritional education, smoking cessation, substance abuse counseling and rehab, are some of the areas in which the tax dollar would be wisely spent.


Chemotherapy, dialysis, coronary bypass, joint replacements - acute care should be left primarily to the doctor / patient.

I am not oppposed to the accountants and the number crunchers SUGGESTING that treatment A has better outcomes than treatment B for this or that group of people but healthcare is far from cookbook.


G&P

[N0help4u]

Prevention is where I think the government has a right to take the lead in healthcare.

Unfortunately they want the money they make on the meds so they discredit many preventatives as quackery and they allow foods to be filled with synthetic processed garbage.

[inthebox]

Hello righty's:

During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed....

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much excercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff.... What's the difference?

excon

Private insurance companies don't have the coercive power to tax us/ take our money, to 1] gain power for themselves by using tax revenue to 2] redistribute tax revenue as they see fit.


There is one government. No choice, no options.
There are multiple options in health, auto, life, home insurance.






G&P

[excon]

There is one government. No choice, no options.
There are multiple options in health, auto, life, home insurance.

Hello again, in:

Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.

Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..

excon

[tomder55]

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much exercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff... What's the difference?

There is a huge difference in my view between building in incentives and covering preventive care on the one hand;and monitoring and mandating behavior on the other. I certanly was not implying that it should be forced on an individual .

But that is exactly what is being proposed in the Senate Bill being crafted by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) .

Under the plan the brownshirts... oops I mean the government will recruit a “national network of community-based organizations” to “promote healthy living and reduce disparities”.(Section C of Title III entitled" Creating Healthier Communities, with Community Transformation Grants "is on pages 382-387 of the bill ).

3 types of entities will be eligible to receive grants under the program: State government agency; local government agency; or a national network of community-based organizations.
The bill has HHS and the CDC award grants “for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of proven evidence-based community preventive health activities in order to reduce chronic disease rates, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.”

Subparagraph (A) of the section entitled, “Community-Based Prevention Health Activities,says the eligible entity (community-based organization) "shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure–
“(i) decreases in weight;
“(ii) increases in proper nutrition;
“(iii) increases in physical activity;
“(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;
“(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and
“(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].”

Don't worry ;Sen.Dodd doesn't think that ACORN would be eligible to monitor your weight.

This is a vehicle for the inclusion of pork into the bill . The provisions designers Sen Kennedy and Dodd envisons local communities using funds from this bill to do infrastructure projects loosely related like build and maintain sidewalks, parks, bike paths, and street lights.It can be argued that these are worthy projects for local communities to take on ,but should these be included to pad bills addressing health care coverage ?

“These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,'' said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.
“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,'' Coley said in a statement.

In health bill, billions for parks, paths - The Boston Globe

No ;no one is saying you should prohibit it from happening . But I question why the Federal Government should fund them.

[ETWolverine]

Hello righty's:

During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed....

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much excercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff.... What's the difference?

excon

Here's the difference:

The insurance companies can put whatever restrictions they want on me. If I don't like it, I can buy DIFFERENT insurance. Or choose to pay medical expenses out of pocket. Or renegotiate my deal with them... I'm sure that if I am willing to pay them enough money, they'll cut me any deal I want, with as few restrictions as I am willing to pay for.

In a single-payer government system, there is no other option. There is no other insurance to buy. The government will not make special deals with me. And I won't be able to pay out of pocket, because that's illegal in a single-payer system.

The difference, excon, whether you are willing to recognize it or not, is CHOICE.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, in:

Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk.... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.

Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..

excon

So... according to you, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are not allowed to pay out of pocket for services not covered under your insurance plan. That's what you are saying.

And it is just simply not true. You know that. I know that.

We both know that if something isn't covered under medical insurance you still have other ways of paying for it. And you can still get the services you need, EVEN IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR THEM. We've pointed out all the programs that are in place to help people who need medical care that isn't covered under insurance or that are uninsured.

So who is it you think you are fooling when you say that individuals in a private health plan have no choices?

Elliot

[zippit]

Devils advocate
I think what ex is saying is you have this paid for insurance that you think has you covered and they find a pre existing condition and bing your not covered and that in itself isn't much of a choice

[excon]

So... according to you, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are not allowed to pay out of pocket for services not covered under your insurance plan. That's what you are saying.

And it is just simply not true. You know that. I know that.

Hello again, El:

Sure... And, if he didn't like the way his broken down VW is working, he can buy a Mercedes Benz...

But, in the REAL world, where I live, I don't know anybody who can buy services that their insurance won't cover...

It's like saying that every poor slob has the choice between Filet Mignon, and pheasant under glass... Which is true if he has the bread... But the FACT of the matter is, his only real choice is between corn flakes and twinkies...

You are WRONG! WRONG and WRONG!! Plus, you're even WRONGER than that.

excon

[ETWolverine]

devils advocate
I think what ex is saying is you have this paid for insurance that you think has you covered and they find a pre existing condition and bing your not covered and that in itself isnt much of a choice

Problem with that argument, Zip, is that there IS a choice. Several of them, in fact.

1) Challenge the insurance company's decision via that company's appeals process, (9 times out of 10, they end up giving in and paying if you challenge them)

2) Pay out of pocket for the services you need,

3) Go to any one of the thousands of charitable organizations that assist people who are in that situation in getting the services they need,

4) Go to the local ER and get the services anyway, since the hospitals cannot turn a patient away for inability to pay.

Any and all of them are viable options. These are CHOICES available to those on private insurance that are NOT available in a single-payer government insurance plan.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Sure... And, if he didn't like the way his broken down VW is working, he can buy a Mercedes Benz... But, in the REAL world, where I live, I don't know anybody who can buy services that their insurance won't cover...

Really? You mean you've NEVER paid out of pocket for a medical need?

I do it about twice a week. I go to therapies that are NOT covered by my insurance and pay out of pocket for those services.

I think you are being less than honest about that. At SOME point, you have paid out of pocket for a medicine, an exam, a diagnostic test, a therapy, that was not covered by your insurance. The amount may have been small, or it may have been large. But you CHOSE to pay it.

Under a single-payer government system, you can't do that.

It's like saying that every poor slob has the choice between Filet Mignon, and pheasant under glass... Which is true if he has the bread... But the FACT of the matter is, his only real choice is between corn flakes and twinkies...

The choice may indeed be between cornflakes and twinkies. But cornflakes will keep your belly full, and twinkies are a nice snack supplement. True, it ain't fois gras and filet mignon, but it'll keep you alive. And a choice between cornflakes, or twinkies or PAYING OUT OF POCKET for filet mignon is still a choice.

Now... compare that to the government single-payer choice, which amounts to "We'll decide what's on the menu, if it ain't on the menu you don't get it, and if you don't like it, tough, you ain't getting anything else."

Then they proceed to tell you that the only thing on the menu is stale bread and gruel, and if if you're over 65, you only get half as much of it as everyone else, because giving you the same as everyone else isn't cost effective. And the COST of the stale bread and gruel is anywhere from 35% to 500% higher than you could buy it on your own, but you're not allowed to buy it on your own.

I'll take the corflakes and twinkies with occasional servings of filet mignon and pheasant under glass that I pay for myself rather than being forced to eat the overly expensive gruel and stale bread, thanks.

You are WRONG! WRONG and WRONG!! Plus, you're even WRONGER than that.

Excon

Nuh uh.

(Hey, I figure that's about the same 6-year-old level as what you wrote.)

Elliot

[tomder55]

Elliot is correct of course. By contrast ;inside various sections of HR3200 are "limitation on review"provisions.

As an example here is the section covering readmission into hospitals.. pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (I), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.



And, under “Definitions”:



''(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term 'applicable condition' means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary.. .



And:



''(E) READMISSION.—The term 'readmission' means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.



And:



''(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of—.. .

''(C) the measures of readmissions.. .

[excon]

Really? You mean you've NEVER paid out of pocket for a medical need? I do it about twice a week. I go to therapies that are NOT covered by my insurance and pay out of pocket for those services.

I think you are being less than honest about that.

Hello again, El:

Nope. YOU are the one who's being dishonest... You are unable to argue the points I make so you deflect to some ridiculous point... You KNOW what I mean. You are purposefully being obtuse. You are doing that because you don't have a REAL reply... That's fine. I'm used to your crap...

Yes, El. I HAVE paid out of pocket... for the things I could afford... But, what I was talking about, and what you KNOW I was talking about, is the MAJOR medical procedures that your insurance won't cover, and that are beyond ANYONE'S ability to pay out of pocket for, unless the patient is WEALTHY...

That would be MOST procedures. Consequently, unless it is for some MINOR procedure, THERE IS NO CHOICE!! NONE! ZERO! NADA!

I don't know what's so HARD for you to get.

Are you NOW going to say that the person can go to an emergency room for this procedure?? You're not going to say that are you?? Well, maybe you are...

excon

[excon]

Hello again, in:

What I'd like to do, is change the conversation... There are several points that the right wing believes, that are NEVER going to change. Arguing with them/you is POINTLESS, as can be seen. I have pointed out the untruths of the right wing opposition continuously, and to NO avail...

What I'd LIKE to talk about, is the fact, that as wrong as the right is, they're/you're WINNING! Let's talk about how a Democratic president, with a 100 seat or so majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, CAN'T get its agenda passed.

excon

[tomder55]

Let's talk about how a Democratic president, with a 100 seat or so majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, CAN'T get its agenda passed.

I'm going to be part of a telephone town hall meeting with Congressman Engel tonight . I will specifically address my concern that members like Anthony Weiner ;on the Chris Matthews show yesterday were stubbornly resisting any option that did not include a public option. He was insistant that the Senate should go nuclear and adopt reconciliation to get it done if they couldn't get the 60 votes .
He appears to be one of the leading radical Democrats revolting against any flexibility and is now a critic of the President for deemphisis of the public plan as a priority .

The President as Wondergirl likes to point out never went to Congress to tell them what he would like in a plan .

Had he done so perhaps we would be debating his plan . But he didn't,and that left the loons like Pelosi ,Waxman ,and evidently Weiner to try to bum rush a Fabian socialists plan down our throats .

I intend to remind Engel that ultimately he represents the people and not the narrow vision of the lefty ideologues that control the Congress.

[Wondergirl]

The President as Wondergirl likes to point out never went to Congress to tell them what he would like in a plan .

Liar, liar, pants on fire! That is NOT what WG said!

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Nope. YOU are the one who's being dishonest... You are unable to argue the points I make so you deflect to some ridiculous point... You KNOW what I mean. You are purposefully being obtuse. You are doing that because you don't have a REAL reply... That's fine. I'm used to your crap...

Actually, I answered each of your points on a point by point basis. You just don't like the answers, so you seek to dismiss them.

Fact: A person who is denied a medical service by his insurance company can still purchase that service on his own. He also has the option of getting that medical procedure without paying for it at all, through charitable organizations or by just going to an ER and obtaining it. That fact is not open to dispute. You can argue all you want about how hard it is, how difficult it is, yadda yadda. Fact is, it can be done and it IS done every single day by people all over the country.

Fact: You cannot do that under a single-payer government health plan. You can claim all you want that the government won't limit our care, won't place limitations on what they'll cover. The fact is that government health care systems all over the world, including the ones inside the USA, limit care every day. And if they do, you're screwed because there is no other option.

End of story.

Yes, El. I HAVE paid out of pocket...

That's it. You just admitted to my entire point. I win the argument. You lose.

If you can pay out of pocket, if that CHOICE exists, no matter how hard it is for you to make that choice, then you prove my point. That choice is NOT available in single-payer government health care.

You can talk all you want about how hard it is to pay out of pocket. Under a government system the option isn't even available. If it comes to a choice of "hard to accomplish" or "not an option", I'll take "hard to accomplish".

There's nothing else to talk about.

Elliot